DOJ-OGR-00008430.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document554 _ Filed 12/18/21 Page3of3 Government would have to seek a Court order that materially alters public interests by jeopardizing—if not forgoing—any future criminal case against that individual. In United States v. Jones, 17 Cr. 791 (LAK), Judge Kaplan rejected this defense argument on stronger facts for the defense. There, the defense sought to force the Government to immunize a defense witness. See Tr. 868-, id. (Dec. 11, 2019). The Court denied that request and subsequently instructed the jury that the parties “had the same opportunity or lack of opportunity to call witnesses.” Tr. 1310, id. (Dec. 16, 2019). Here, the defense at no point sought to immunize any particular witnesses. And although at the charge conference the defense identified one witness who the defense said had criminal exposure, it is evident that this case also involves numerous uncalled witnesses who were available for the defense to call, including Virginia Roberts. Particularly given the facts of this case, there is no basis to deviate from the standard instruction on the equal availability of witnesses. Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: ___s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Cc: Defense Counsel (by ECF) DOJ-OGR-00008430